Having lost their last best hope Francis, modernists move from "re-imagining the Papacy" to "re-imagining this Church without the Papacy". The logical conclusion of the Synodal Path.
Golias is a critical Catholic publishing house based in Lyon, which publishes books and press titles. Golias became a publishing house in 1994. Its founding title, "éditions Golias", comes from the left-wing Catholic magazine Golias Magazine, launched in 1985.
Its name refers to a legendary medieval bishop called Golias, who is said to have inspired the Goliards, a group of singers critical of the Roman Catholic Church.
Cathcon has said many times before that the Synodalists want to destroy priesthood and episcopacy; this sets their sights higher. Do not be any doubt what modernist synodalists want. This lays it out. They must be blocked on all fronts.
It is no longer a question of "re-imagining the Papacy"
in the Roman Catholic Church, but of re-imagining this Church without the Papacy.
The cornerstone of the construction of the clerical Church, it responds, in
turn, to the old theological, patriarchal and pyramidal paradigm: God the
Father on high, the Son incarnated in the man Jesus, the apostle Peter invested
with power over the other apostles, the Pope Peter's successor in the Church
and Christ's vicar on earth. One God, one incarnate Son, one Pope who
represents him (in an opportune alliance with the king of the moment).
The Catholic institution, with the Pope at its head, is a
huge muddle of goodwill, age-old beliefs and prejudices, conflicting interests
and rival ambitions for power. A huge vicious circle that imprisons the Gospel
and obscures the future: theology legitimises the clerical system, and the
clerical system, with a plenipotentiary Pope, defends theology. At the end of
Pope Francis' pontificate, this clerical Church is still intact and will remain
so for the next and all subsequent pontificates, until the vicious circle is
broken.
In any case, it will not be enough to have a good Pope, nor
to reform the Curia, nor to expose the dark world of finance, nor to write
encyclicals and urgent economic, political and ecological exhortations for
others, nor to organise synods, nor to appoint like-minded cardinals to better
prepare the next conclave. In fact, the building is cracked all over.
On the other hand, the recent images of the Pope leaving
hospital have shown a pitiful spectacle for the person of the Pope and for the
Catholic community as a whole: was it necessary to show the impotence of an
exhausted man and a weak Church in this way? An indecent spectacle of a
Catholic institution whose interests of power want to prevail over those of the
wounded man. An obscene spectacle of a press sold to the morbid market.
José Arregi *
*The article was written before the death of Francis (so we
have deleted the last two paragraphs).
***
Interview: Golias Hebdo questions the authors of the book
Réformer ou abolir la papauté.
Golias Hebdo:
Robert Ageneau, you coordinated a book entitled Réformer ou abolir la papauté.
Un enjeu d'avenir pour l'Église catholique (Reforming or abolishing the Papacy.
A future challenge for the Catholic Church). How did you come up with
the idea?
[Cathcon: A note before the interview- Former priest in the Congregation of the Missionaries of the Holy Spirit!!!
Robert Ageneau steered the magazine Karthaha's thinking in the direction of three major movements: decolonisation, the Second Vatican Council from 1962 to 1965, which advocated openness to the world and to modernity, and May 68. These reflections challenged the established order and the very idea of mission. They led to the publication in 1974 of an article entitled "La dé -mission", which urged missionaries to leave and the population to get involved. "A daring article", exclaimed Robert Ageneau with a smile, who did not see himself reappointed as head of Spiritus.
The break with the Church was complete, and Robert Ageneau, who described himself as "a Catholic and an opponent", could no longer find his place in it. He left the Spiritans, returned to the secular state in 1974 and the following year founded L'Harmattan publishing house with his colleague Denis Pryen. "We didn't want to embody the house, we wanted a symbolic name". L'Harmattan, which is a warm West African wind, positions the publishing house of the same name as a forum for reflection on post-colonialism, the role of Christianity in relation to developing countries, and Creole and African literature. Source]
Golias Hebdo: Paul Fleuret, does the Papacy have any
foundation in the New Testament?
Paul Fleuret: What is certain is that the Papacy has its
foundation in the Code of Canon Law, which in number 331 declares: "The Bishop
of the Church of Rome, in whom remains the function which the Lord entrusted in
a singular manner to Peter, first of the apostles, and which must be
transmitted to his successors, is the head of the College of Bishops, Vicar of
Christ and Pastor of the whole Church on this earth; for which reason he
possesses in the Church the ordinary, supreme, full, immediate and universal
power, which he can always exercise freely". But in the New Testament?
What is certain is that Jesus of Nazareth never thought of founding a Church,
nor a movement that would last after his death: what he wanted, as far as we
can deduce, was to proclaim the good news of salvation freely given by God,
without going through the multiple obligations of the "Law" and the
prescriptions of the Pharisees. And this salvation is for all,
"sinners" or not, "pure" or not.
So what to do with what Matthew puts in Jesus' mouth
(16,15-20): "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.... I
will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: whatever you bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven"? Let us note that these same words are addressed to all in Mt
18:18 (and also in Jn 20:23): "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven". We are dealing with texts addressed to Matthew's community at
the end of the first century, and not with an account of Jesus' words. Note also that the word ekklèsia, assembly,
church, only appears in Matthew's gospels. The words put into the mouth of Jesus are an
expression of the Matthean community, and not of the man Jesus.
Cathcon: If Jesus had no intent to found the Church and we cannot rely on what he said, the Gospels soon are evacuated of any meaning or importance.
In the 1950s, Paul wrote to various "Christian" communities. These various groups gradually became structured: among them we find "apostles, prophets, teachers, servants (diakonia), bishops." While these groups have different roles for their proper functioning, it is no less true that a fundamental equality prevails among all. Thus, Paul reminds us: "You are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a member of that body" (1 Cor 12:27).
The Book of Acts, around the year 90, presents Peter and Paul, but Peter never appears to be entrusted with a special ministry of command. Even Paul questions his practice. In short, there is no Pope in the early Christian assemblies, which do not constitute a structured group. Nothing that foreshadows the Roman Papacy!
Golias Hebdo: The first centuries of the Church witnessed an abundant practice of regional councils. The Pope seemed to play the role of secretary and arbiter in them. How did the evolution toward the status of the pope as supreme head of the Church, with the power to condemn and excommunicate, occur?
Paul Fleuret: The word "Pope" does not only designate the Bishop of Rome: the Patriarch of Alexandria is Pope. The word means "dad," "father," and only from the sixth century onward was it reserved for the bishop of Rome to express his primacy over the other bishops. Until the Council of Nicaea (325), the Pope was nothing more than a metropolitan. Let us not imagine in first-century Rome a Pope with a diocese and a curia, but rather what M.-F. Baslez has called "the Church at home," small, informal groups that met and formed a community of faith.
At the beginning of the second century, changes were coming. Clement of Rome wrote to the Christians of Corinth: "The bishops and deacons have received their office from the apostles with the consent of the whole Church. The priests have their place, the Levites their service, the laity the obligations of the laity." And Ignatius of Antioch, around the year 115, hardened the clerical positions: "You submit to the Bishop as to Jesus Christ... Do nothing without the Bishop..." Clericalism and machismo! With the arrival of Emperor Constantine, Christian groups gradually transformed into a "Church" with a public presence. In Rome, where the emperor no longer resided, the bishop became the central figure of the city and soon adopted the title that the emperor had held until then: Pontifex Maximus, Supreme Pontiff.
In the Middle East, theological debates are continuous: controversies are adored. The main theme is the nature of the relationship between Jesus and God. So-called heresies, a word that means choice, opinion, doctrine, are multiplying. The seven so-called ecumenical councils were convened by the reigning emperor in Constantinople, but no Pope participated in them, being replaced by a bishop and, sometimes, by a deacon.
In the West, numerous local councils were held, bringing together bishops, without the pope, to resolve problems. And only gradually did the pope's power become established in all areas of Christian life. This power also became political and economic: Charlemagne granted the popes, in central Italy, a territory that would become the ever-expanding Papal States. Judicial power was quickly added to this: those who deviated from doctrine or morality—Cathars, Jews, and thinkers who dared to question doctrine—had to be judged and punished. The day came when the Inquisition was established with its exactions...
Golias Hebdo: Gilles Castelnau's book also addresses the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, a result of the intransigence of Rome and, in particular, of Pope Leo X.
Gilles Castelnau: At the beginning of the 16th century, Luther (1483-1546) founded a theological school centered on the affirmation of salvation through faith. A wind of discovery was then blowing in Germany and throughout Europe from Italy. Until then, in the so-called "Gothic" period, man had only reason to exist as a submissive son of the Church. A return to the Gospel and the purity of the early Church: such was the motto of the Christian humanists, among whom Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536) and Jacques Lefèvre d'Étaples (1460-1536) stood out in France. This return to the Gospel is above all a return to the texts of Scripture, which leads to a critique of abuses and a questioning of the dogmas and laws of the Church.
Luther responded to human anguish with his discovery of "justification by faith." Studying the New Testament, he declared: "In the Gospel, the righteousness of God is revealed through faith." This liberating enlightenment gave him profound assurance. This liberation resulted in the change of his surname. From Luder, he became Luther or Eleutherius, which in Greek means "free man."
The anguish Luther felt before this discovery was shared by many people at the time. The Church attempted to remedy this torment with the theory of indulgences. Certainly, he said, we are guilty, but we can perform acts that will earn us God's indulgence, such as almsgiving. The practice of indulgences degenerated. Thus, in exchange for money, divine mercy for the deceased could be purchased. The final straw was the mission of the Dominican priest Johann Tetzel, who sold "indulgences" in Germany to finance the construction of St. Peter's Basilica. Luther warned Church officials in vain, and on October 31, 1517, All Saints' Eve, he posted his famous "95 Theses" in Latin on the door of the Church in Wittenberg. It is said that that same night, they were translated into German and posted everywhere, causing an explosion of passion in Germany and throughout Europe.
In the autumn of 1518, a debate took place in Augsburg, where Luther confronted Cardinal Cajetan, a renowned Dominican and representative of the reigning Pope, Leo X. On both the issue of indulgences and the concept of salvation, the dialogue was difficult and the meeting ended in failure, as Cajetan remained intransigent in his understanding of the power of the papacy.
For some time, the debate continued, and Luther believed his point of view would prevail. But Pope Leo X did not wait and on June 15, 1520, published the bull Exsurge Domine against the errors of Martin Luther, which Luther publicly burned in Wittenberg Square. The pope excommunicated him on January 3, 1521. This gesture of excommunication, which Pope Leo X should never have made, caused a rupture between nascent Protestantism and Catholicism.
Golias Hebdo: Jacques Musset, the Catholic Church responded to the Reformation with the Council of Trent. Could you tell us something about this and remind us how the Church experienced the movement of modernity that swept through Europe beginning in the 16th and 17th centuries?
Jacques Musset: Indeed, the Council of Trent was, for the Catholic Church, a true Counter-Reformation, affirming a self-confident and authoritarian Catholicism, based on immutable dogmas and governed by a sacralized religious hierarchy, which retained all powers to guide the faithful toward eternal salvation. But already at that time, the Catholic Church faced new challenges from another front. These came from thinkers from all disciplines who demanded the right to think freely with their reason and to subject all teachings and opinions from the past, including their Christian tradition, to their rational judgment, based on experimentation. This represented a profound break with the normal functioning of Catholic society, in which all faithful were obliged to think according to the doctrine defined by religious authorities and guaranteed by God. Faced with this movement called "modernity," which questioned the Church's claim to possess the Truth in everything and above all, Catholic authorities reacted relentlessly by condemning the troublemakers.
From the beginning of the 17th century until the eve of the Second Vatican Council, Roman condemnations rained down on them. On the scientist Galileo (1564-1642), who demonstrated that the Earth revolved around the Sun. On the Catholic priest Richard Simon (1638-1712), who demonstrated, like other Jewish exegetes, that the first books of the Bible were not the work of Moses. On the philosophers of the Enlightenment (another name for "modernity"): the French Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert, Rousseau, etc., the German Immanuel Kant, who criticized the doctrine and organization of the Church based on a revelation received from God Himself. On the priest Lamennais (1782-1854), who fought for the separation of Church and State. On the scientist Charles Darwin (1809-1882), whose theory of evolution shattered the traditional doctrine of the Church according to which each species was created directly by God, and in particular man, which called into question the doctrine of original sin. The "modern errors," including freedom of conscience, freedom of worship for other religions, the autonomy of reason, freedom of expression, the separation of Church and State, the superiority of civil law over religious law, the relativity of so-called natural law, disobedience to legitimate princes, were all condemned in the sinister "Syllabus" of Pius IX in 1864.
Cathcon: How can you call Catholic teaching sinister? The Syllabus of Errors
At the beginning of the 20th century, repression descended on the "modernists," theologians, historians, and exegetes who strove to rethink their faith in contemporary culture. And until the death of Pius XII, it was on theologians and biblical scholars who continued the work of their predecessors by rethinking the Christian faith in the culture of the time marked by the "masters of suspicion," Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud. Leading thinkers such as Teilhard de Chardin, Chenu, Congar, and De Lubac paid a high price for this. The same occurred with the recent and promising experience of the worker priests, which was brutally interrupted in 1954. Until the eve of the Second Vatican Council, Rome vehemently opposed anything that questioned its claim to possess the truth by divine mandate and entrenched itself in its certainty of being right. Will the Second Vatican Council initiate a promising evolution? Golias Hebdo: Has the Second Vatican Council brought anything new to the role of the Pope?
Jacques Musset: When one reads carefully the texts promulgated by the Council, one can only answer in the negative. This is attested by these brief, significant excerpts.
"In this Church of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the mission of tending his sheep and lambs, enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power for the care of souls. Likewise, in his capacity as shepherd of all the faithful, sent to ensure the common good of the universal Church and the good of each of the Churches, he possesses the primacy of ordinary power over all the Churches" (Christus Dominus, § 2).
Second Vatican Council
"[The Catholic Church] is the one Church of Christ, [...] which our Savior, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter for pastoral care (Jn 21:17), which he entrusted to him and the other Apostles for their spreading and guidance (Mt 28:18, etc.), and which he made forever 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15)" (Lumen Gentium, § 8).
"The task of authentically interpreting the Word of God, written or transmitted, has been entrusted to the one living Magisterium of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ, [and that] it is evident, therefore, that Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church, according to God's wise plan, are so intertwined and united with one another that none of these realities subsists without the others, and that all together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (Verbum Dei, § 10).
"For everything that pertains to the interpretation of Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgment of the Church, which exercises the divinely received ministry and mandate to guard the Word of God and to interpret it" (Verbum Dei, § 12).
"Each bishop, entrusted with the care of a particular Church, feeds his sheep in the name of the Lord, under the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, as their proper, ordinary, and immediate shepherd, exercising over them the function of teaching, sanctifying, and governing (Christus Dominus, § 11).
Regarding the regulation of births, while it is stated that "in the last analysis, it is the spouses themselves who must decide (their judgment) before God" (§ 50), it is immediately added: "In their conduct, Christian spouses must know that they cannot act according to their own judgment, but that they are always obliged to follow their conscience, a conscience that must conform to divine law; and that they must remain docile to the Magisterium of the Church, the authoritative interpreter of this law in the light of the Gospel" (Gaudium et spes, § 50).
As regards the regulation of births, it is not permitted to the children of the Church, faithful to these principles, to take paths that the Magisterium, in the explanation of divine law, disapproves (Gaudium et Spes, § 51).
Golias Hebdo: You claim that the popes after the Second Vatican Council have progressively returned to a top-down management of the Church.
Robert Ageneau: The Second Vatican Council was supposed to profoundly reform the Church. Convened in January 1959 by John XXIII, it was presented as a time of aggiornamento, a breath of fresh air for an institution that needed to open its doors. John XXIII is credited with saying these unequivocal words: "I can do nothing against the Curia; I call a council." With its four sessions (1962-1965), Vatican II was indeed a time of openness and dialogue. But the resulting assessment fell far short of the expectations it had raised. The conciliar responses remain relative and partial, and, moreover, it is clear that some important issues have been decisively set aside. The Catholic institution had a huge gap to catch up with. This openness had to be continued, deepened—in a word, gone further. But this was not to be. Once the bishops returned to their dioceses, Pope Paul VI, who had led the Council's last three sessions (1963-1965), reverted to a pre-conciliar mode of government, as the Council had recognized and confirmed all of the papacy's previous prerogatives. He allowed the Roman Curia, still strongly controlled by Cardinal Ottaviani (1890-1979), to regain its strength and bypassed the Great Commission on "Family and Sexuality" created by the Council to continue collective work on the issue after 1965. This led him, in 1968, to publish the encyclical Humanae Vitae, which condemned the use of artificial contraception, much to the dismay of many Catholic couples.
After the Second Vatican Council, Paul VI also revived the practice of synods of bishops, but assigned them a purely advisory role to the Pope. This situation persists even today. We saw it clearly with the last two synods: the Amazon Synod in 1979 and the one held in two phases in the fall of 2023 and 2024. Neither of these two synods, which dealt with specific reform issues (the ordination of married men, the repeal of the law of mandatory celibacy for priests, the ordination of women to the diaconate, etc.), had the slightest deliberative power.
Then came the election of Pope John Paul I in the conclave that followed the death of Paul VI in 1978. A pope who only served in office for thirty-three days and was found dead in his bedroom on the morning of September 29, 1978. A death that many Catholics considered suspicious and that remains so today, pending an autopsy. In the criminal investigation conducted by British investigator David Yallop, the Roman Curia is cited as one of the focal points of resistance to this pope who sought to revive the conciliar dynamic. It should not be ruled out in this sudden death, although David Yallop identifies other possible causes.
There is no need to dwell on the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, which emphasized a return to conservative practices (the condemnation of the Dominican Jacques Pohier in 1979, six months after the election of Karol Wojtyla, criticism of liberation theology, the election of conservative bishops, the publication of the very traditional Catechism of the Catholic Church in 1992). Beneath his friendly exterior, Pope Francis has practiced the same Papal authoritarianism, fueled, some would say, by his Jesuit culture of power.
Golias Hebdo: José Arrregi, what is your assessment of Pope Francis's mandate?
José Arregi: My assessment of this papacy can be summed up in one word: contradiction, and this term is not meant as a criticism of Pope Francis. Contradiction is inherent to the human condition in general, but it is most evident in the figure of a pope like Francis. Here are some examples: On the night of his election, twelve years ago, he stood on the Vatican balcony and, bowing to the crowd gathered in St. Peter's Square, declared: "Before I bless you, I want you to ask God to bless me." Why not simply say "I want you to bless me"?
From day one, he has called himself "Bishop of Rome" instead of Pope, but he has never ceased to be an authoritarian pope, yet at the same time simple and affable. His socioeconomic and political message has been courageous and subversive, but his theology (his language about God, Christ, sin, "redemption," the human being, the Church, morality in matters such as sexuality, euthanasia, abortion—he recently called the doctors involved "murderers"—etc.) was very conservative.
He called for "welcoming with mercy" LGBTQI+ people, but pathologized their condition and condemned their sexual practices as sinful. He approved the blessing of same-sex couples, but on the condition that it be done privately, without liturgy or ritual, as if in secret. And he called gender theory a "diabolical ideology."
He exalted the figure of women and highlighted their qualities, entrusting them with high positions in the Vatican, such as undersecretary of the last synod on synodality, prefect of the dicastery for Religious Life, and governor of Vatican City. However, he made it clear, from beginning to end, that women cannot exercise "ordained ministries" (diaconate, priesthood, episcopate), but only subordinate "lay ministries," since they do not have, by divine will, the power to represent Jesus presiding at the Eucharist or granting absolution. He has constantly warned against clericalism, but, after twelve years and four synods, he has not changed a single comma of an article of canon law to effectively overcome, present or future, patriarchal clericalism, whose cornerstone is precisely the papacy.
The papacy, a system based on the absolute power of a single person, is a great contradiction. At the end of Pope Francis's pontificate, due to a lack of will or real power on his part, this contradiction remains intact. And it cannot be reformed; it would have to be abolished in the name of humanity and the Church, in the name of Jesus.
Golias Hebdo: How can we imagine a reform of the papacy?
Robert Ageneau: Paul Fleuret has previously pointed out that it is difficult to find in the New Testament writings a basis for grounding the theology of the papacy. The role of arbiter with authority over the other Churches is rather due to the fact that the Bishop of Rome was located in the heart of the capital of the Roman Empire. Papal primacy was not imposed immediately. It is important to remember that the early centuries were a time of numerous regional councils, both in Europe and North Africa and in the Near East, to resolve questions of discipline or doctrine. Our book illustrates this by recalling the controversy that took place in the fourth and fifth centuries over original sin and divine grace between Pelagius and Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. At that time, this conciliar or synodal practice had a decisive character, which the popes recorded, although the measures could be subject to further debate.
At the Second Vatican Council and in the following years, the bishops debated the issue of regional Churches with a certain degree of autonomy. Dominican theologian Hervé Legrand, a renowned specialist in ecclesiology, recalls in a work published on the subject that the Second Vatican Council dedicated a special decree to the Eastern Catholic Churches. This decree declared "solemnly that the Eastern Churches, like the Western Churches, have the right and the duty to govern themselves according to their own particular disciplines, which are more in keeping with the customs of their faithful and seem more appropriate to ensure the good of souls."[1]
In this first quarter of the 21st century, can we dream of a papacy that fosters a dynamic of deliberative regional councils and accepts the autonomy of local Churches? Our book attempts to describe the features and appearance of a new pope who would move in this direction.
External Features
The new Pope of the Catholic Church could continue to be, by tradition, the Bishop of Rome, but would abandon the small Papal State of the Vatican, whose current status depends on the Lateran Agreements of 1929. In this way, the pope would cease to be a head of state.
The new pope, Bishop of Rome, would have to live in a house or an apartment in a building with a secretary and some advisors. He would have to play the role of Secretary General of the Catholic Church, highlighting the conclusions of the regional councils and mediating conflicts through dialogue. His mandate would end at 75 or 80 years of age.
The Roman Curia would cease to have any purpose and would be abolished.
The magnificent architectural complex of the Vatican (St. Peter's Square with its basilica, Bernini's colonnades, the papal apartments, the Sistine Chapel) would be handed over to the Italian State or UNESCO, which would be able to properly manage its cultural wealth.
A special and complicated issue would be that of the Vatican Bank. Perhaps it could be transformed into a foundation?
Deeper and more essential features
In this new vision of the papacy, the Catholic Church would abandon its dogmatic claim to possess the truth and to consider itself superior to non-Catholic Churches. This fundamental requirement would require a profound reform of its official doctrine. It could then join the World Council of Churches as a member.
We will be told that such an evolution is an impossible dream. That is probably true. But the Catholic Church is in crisis today. It is heading toward collapse in some regions of the world, as the Italian-Canadian theologian Bruno Mori predicted. [2] From its profound crisis it can emerge more humble and, with it, perhaps closer to the rich and ever-present message of Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth. To conclude with a pope, or rather with someone who was not yet pope, here is what Joseph Ratzinger declared, speaking of the Catholic Church on German radio in 1968, when he was a theologian with Hans Küng in Tübingen:
"It [the Church] will be reduced in size and will have to start almost from scratch... This will impoverish it. The process will be all the more arduous because it will have to rid itself of sectarian narrow-mindedness and an overly pompous self-affirmation... In the end, there will remain a Church, not of political worship, because that has already died, but a Church of faith... It will experience a rebirth and will once again become the home of men, where they will find life and hope."[3]
[1] Decree on the Eastern Churches, no. 2. Quoted in Ignace Ndongala Maduku, Pour des Églises régionales en Afrique, Karthala, 1999, p. 3.
[2] Bruno Mori, Vers l'effondrement. Crise des dogmes, des sacrements et du sacerdoce dans l'Église catholique, Karthala, 2023, 276 p.
[3]. Text collected in La Vie magazine on November 29, 2018.
.jpeg)
Comments